PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by
Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In the
Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to a public reprimand. Respondent
also agrees to complete the Legal
Ethics and Practice Program (LEAPP) Trust Account School and Ethics School. We accept the Agreement, issue a public
reprimand, and require respondent to complete the LEAPP Trust Account School
and Ethics School. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

Facts

For more than
twenty years, respondent maintained a client trust account (the Old Account)
without keeping accurate records and without proper reconciliation of the
account. In 2006, following an audit by respondent’s title insurance company,
respondent opened a new trust account (the New Account) because he was unable
to sufficiently identify the funds in the Old Account or adequately document
outstanding disbursements. Although respondent opened and began to use the New
Account, he continued to use the Old Account for a significant number of his
clients’ transactions.

In August 2008,
respondent issued approximately twenty-six checks on the New Account when there
were not sufficient funds in the account to cover them. When those checks were
presented to the bank, reports were submitted by the bank to the Commission on
Lawyer Conduct pursuant to Rule 1.15(h), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. In response to
the reports from the bank, and the resulting disciplinary investigation, respondent
retained an accountant to assist him in determining the cause of the
overdrafts.

In the meantime,
respondent began making deposits of his own funds into the New Account to cover
what he thought were the remaining outstanding checks. However, because
respondent had not adopted appropriate recordkeeping and reconciliation
practices upon opening the New Account, his estimate of the total amount of
outstanding checks was incorrect. This inaccuracy, coupled with the fact that
respondent continued to issue checks on the New Account, resulted in additional
overdrafts.

Between August 1,
2008 and October 31, 2008, respondent issued approximately sixty-one checks on
the New Account, totaling in excess of $1,147,000, on insufficient funds.
According to the results of the audit, the overdrafts on the New Account were
caused by several wires of incoming funds being sent erroneously to the Old
Account rather than to the New Account. Because respondent was not confirming
that his wires were received in the correct account prior to disbursement, he
issued checks from the New Account not knowing that the funds were not
available.

Respondent had
delegated complete control over the law office accounting, including both trust
accounts, to a single employee. She was responsible for issuing checks, making
deposits, reconciling the accounts, reviewing bank statements, and maintaining
records. Respondent gave her a signature stamp and authorized her use of it on
trust account checks. She had very little formal accounting education and
received no instruction or training from respondent regarding ethical
obligations related to client funds. Respondent did not review his bank
statements, his financial records, or the employee’s reconciliation reports.
Over a period of about two years, the employee removed approximately $320,000
from the Old Account to the firm’s operating account, although the firm was not
entitled to the funds. Because respondent was not adequately supervising the
management of the accounts, respondent was unaware of the transfers until the
audit was conducted.

As a result of
the audit, respondent has now identified all outstanding checks and created
accurate client ledgers. Respondent has confirmed that all outstanding checks
have either been paid or have sufficient funds on deposit to cover them. The
incorrect wires into the Old Account in August 2008 covered the funds
improperly removed from that account to the operating account by respondent’s
employee. The shortages caused in the New Account by the incorrect wires were
restored by deposit of respondent’s own funds. Based on the information now
available, it does not appear that any clients, third parties, or banks have
suffered any losses.

Law

Respondent admits that, by his misconduct, he has violated the
following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3
(a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client); Rule 1.15 (a lawyer shall hold client property
in the lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from
the lawyer's own property; client property shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded, with complete
records of such account funds and other property kept by the lawyer; a lawyer
may deposit the lawyer's own funds in a client trust account for the sole
purpose of paying service charges on that account, but only in an amount
necessary for that purpose; a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or
third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is
entitled to receive); Rule 5.1 (a lawyer who possesses managerial authority in a law
firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect
measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to
the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 5.3 (a lawyer who possesses managerial authority in a law firm
shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures
giving reasonable assurance that a nonlawyer employee’s conduct is compatible
with the professional obligations of the lawyer and a lawyer having direct
supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to
ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional
obligations of the lawyer); and Rule 8.4(a) (it is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct).

Respondent further admits
his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a)(1) of the
Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR (it shall be a
ground for discipline for a lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct). Finally, respondent admits he failed to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of
Rule 417, SCACR.

Conclusion

We find respondent’s
misconduct warrants a public
reprimand. Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and
publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct. Respondent shall also,
within one year of the date of this opinion, complete the LEAPP Trust Account
School and Ethics School.

Finally, respondent shall, within thirty days of the date of this
order, pay $502.23, which represents the costs incurred by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in the investigation
and prosecution of this matter.